The future of Science

[Edward Prochak]

Even the kooks and trolls here I think would agree that
science is important.

Well Daniel Whiteson, Jorge Cham have some comments on this
as posted here-
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/we-live-in-a-pre-truth-universe/

This article points out something I (and others) have
mentioned before. It begins:

"There are no uncharted lands waiting for ships to find
their shores, and few if any untasted fruits waiting
for human lips. Many grand mysteries of the Universe
have been cracked open by science, from the makeup of
matter on Earth to the nature of the stars in the sky.
The child who marvels at the adventures of Magellan or
wonders about how the Universe works might worry:
What is left for me to discover?

Our answer should be: Well, almost everything."


If you disagree with relativity, wait another hundred
years or so, it will be updated. If you think there is
more to learn about weather phenomenon, yes we will
find more and better models of climate.

But that answer will be yes and our knowledge will grow
only if we let the younger generations know that
we don't know everything.

The article concludes:

"As Adam Gopnik wrote in the New Yorker: “Every few weeks
or so, in the Science Times, we find out that some basic
question of the universe has now been answered—but why,
we wonder, weren’t we told about the puzzle until after
it was solved?” When we talk about science to the public,
we need to explain what we have discovered, but we should
also not be afraid to tout our ignorance. When we introduce
the grand mysteries, we make the case for the importance
of further exploration."



In some ways PV, JM, John and others here are doing a service:
questioning the established science. This is one reason why
I respond to PV's posts for example. He at least tries to
bring some evidence to his posts.

But I think his focus and that of some others is misleading.
It isn't helpful just to say this or that theory is Wrong.
It is more that our current theories are incomplete.
Lets discuss the edges of our knowledge. There are questions
to be asked. Simply posting that this or that person is Wrong
only leads to the flame wars that currently seem a permanent
part of this group.

All of us need to take a step back, take a deep breath,
and discuss these issues calmly and rationally.

I sincerely hope this sparks some better discussions
in this group.

see you around
ed

[HVAC]

Edward Prochak

Even the kooks and trolls here I think would agree that science is important.

-----------

To many of the kooks here, science is not important.

Now I won't mention names in order to spare their feelings, but some people here see no evidence for the big bang. Does that sound like someone who thinks science is important? These same (unnamed) people see no evidence for a black hole either. Does that sound like someone who thinks science is important?

No, what's important to these unnamed people is feeling special. They like to feel that THEY have been shown information that the rest of us just refuse to understand. And all of it is based on religion. Once you accept a paranormal creator, you open up all sorts of insane beliefs as we see here every day.

These are not people that follow the ways of science. They follow their version of voodoo.

And every single person here who actually does believe that science is important should follow my lead in insulting these people. Insult them, ridicule them and leave no doubt that you stand for real science.

Have a nice day everyone!

[benj]

On 4/24/2017 1:30 PM, HVAC wrote:
> Edward Prochak Even the kooks and trolls here I think would agree
> that science is important. -----------
>
> To many of the kooks here, science is not important.
>
> Now I won't mention names in order to spare their feelings, but some
> people here see no evidence for the big bang. Does that sound like
> someone who thinks science is important? These same (unnamed) people
> see no evidence for a black hole either. Does that sound like someone
> who thinks science is important?

Lie as usual. Did not say there was no evidence, I said the evidence was
interpreted erroneously. But you believe in fairy tales like when
Hawking says that everything is known. Yeah, sure.

> No, what's important to these unnamed people is feeling special. They
> like to feel that THEY have been shown information that the rest of
> us just refuse to understand. And all of it is based on religion.
> Once you accept a paranormal creator, you open up all sorts of insane
> beliefs as we see here every day.

Did anyone mention a "paranormal creator"? Only HVAC, the same
clownshoes who keeps bringing up ghosts. His believe in Satan and evil
explains a lot. I sure hope those voices in his head don't suggest a
vacation with him strolling down the Champs Elysees.

> These are not people that follow the ways of science. They follow
> their version of voodoo.

HVAC is so ignorant, he doesn't even know what voodoo is. It's called
Voudoun Necromancy, Hardblow, you ignorant racist. (no offense) It's all
about ghosts, doesn't that please you?

> And every single person here who actually does believe that science
> is important should follow my lead in insulting these people. Insult
> them, ridicule them and leave no doubt that you stand for real
> science.

Anyone see Hardbloe stand for anything but science fantasy and politics?
It's a wonder he isn't pushing the trillion dollar "carbon tax" like
Wormlie. He was into propaganda and lies just like HVAC.

Hint: Real science is about TRUTH and not about Lies (which of course is
the basis of politics, theft and crime.) HVAC is ALL about lies.

[HVAC]

------------

As is obvious to everyone, I choose to travel the high road. BJ wallows in the slop of religion, magic and voodoo.

Notice that I used NO names, yet BJ feels defensive.

Edward, it's clear that BJ is the troublemaker here. I am simply the counterweight to madness

[Mahipal]

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 1:30:37 PM UTC-4, HVAC wrote:
> Edward Prochak
>> Even the kooks and trolls here I think would agree that science is important.
> -----------
>
> To many of the kooks here, science is not important.

Projection by false needless accusations, so damn obvious.

> Now I won't mention names in order to spare their feelings, but some
> people here see no evidence for the big bang. Does that sound like
> someone who thinks science is important? These same (unnamed) people
> see no evidence for a black hole either. Does that sound like
> someone who thinks science is important?

Projection by false needless accusations of blindness, so damn obvious.

> No, what's important to these unnamed people is feeling
> special. They like to feel that THEY have been shown information
> that the rest of us just refuse to understand. And all of it is
> based on religion. Once you accept a paranormal creator, you open up
> all sorts of insane beliefs as we see here every day.

Projection by false needless religion, so damn obvious.

> These are not people that follow the ways of science. They follow
> their version of voodoo.

Projection by false needless voodoo, so damn obvious.

> And every single person here who actually does believe that science
> is important should follow my lead in insulting these people. Insult
> them, ridicule them and leave no doubt that you stand for real
> science.

Projection by false needless insults, so damn ridicuLun@#. Your faith suckeths!

> Have a nice day everyone!

Aww... aren't you sweet HeilSatanHVAC. Buy a soul or a vowel. Hurry!

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”

[reber G=emc^2]

It is science that will destroy the future.It gives us a better life,and will take away all life.It even has a chance this very week.TreBert

[benj]

Gosh, folks. Anybody here smart enough to notice that it was HVAC and
not I who brought up "paranormal creator" and it was He who began
wallowing in his religious filth? Yeah, I didn't think anybody was.
That's why he's able to fool you all.

[HVAC]

BJ quacked

Gosh, folks. Anybody here smart enough to notice that it was HVAC and
not I who brought up "paranormal creator" and it was He who began
wallowing in his religious filth? Yeah, I didn't think anybody was.
That's why he's able to fool you all.

-------------

Good thing YOU are here! These poor people here? What would they every do without you?

It's too brutal to contemplate

[benj]

Obviously without someone with an actual science education and
credentials to wield the Sword of Truth, they would be quickly taken in
by your religious fantasies and lies. It is my duty to save lesser
beings from the likes of you. I consider it an honor not work.

[Mahipal]

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:05:32 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> Even the kooks and trolls here I think would agree that
> science is important.

Kepler, Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Pangaea Guy, ... were all kooks/cranks. Once.

First, see what happens to a thread when realKookHVAC intervenes? Get used to it.

> Well Daniel Whiteson, Jorge Cham have some comments on this
> as posted here-
> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/we-live-in-a-pre-truth-universe/

Funny article. Seems inspired by a discussion you and I had, perhaps
less than a week before.

> This article points out something I (and others) have
> mentioned before. It begins:
>
> "There are no uncharted lands waiting for ships to find
> their shores, and few if any untasted fruits waiting
> for human lips. Many grand mysteries of the Universe
> have been cracked open by science, from the makeup of
> matter on Earth to the nature of the stars in the sky.
> The child who marvels at the adventures of Magellan or
> wonders about how the Universe works might worry:
> What is left for me to discover?
>
> Our answer should be: Well, almost everything."

Oh the futility! It's all been discovered. Not!

> If you disagree with relativity, wait another hundred
> years or so, it will be updated. If you think there is
> more to learn about weather phenomenon, yes we will
> find more and better models of climate.

Have never seen SR applied in real engineering.
Also, weather is not climate. Periodicity of each.

> But that answer will be yes and our knowledge will grow
> only if we let the younger generations know that
> we don't know everything.

Well, you EdJi are sane, not a spokesperson for Settled Sciences.

> The article concludes:
>
> "As Adam Gopnik wrote in the New Yorker: “Every few weeks
> or so, in the Science Times, we find out that some basic
> question of the universe has now been answered—but why,
> we wonder, weren’t we told about the puzzle until after
> it was solved?” When we talk about science to the public,
> we need to explain what we have discovered, but we should
> also not be afraid to tout our ignorance. When we introduce
> the grand mysteries, we make the case for the importance
> of further exploration."

That's a very good point. What are the puzzles them scientists are
going to resolve every few weeks? Well, what are they? What's
scheduled for press release and when When WHEN?! Great point.

> In some ways PV, JM, John and others here are doing a service:
> questioning the established science. This is one reason why
> I respond to PV's posts for example. He at least tries to
> bring some evidence to his posts.

PV literally posts links/quotes of many other reasonable scientists.
Yes, sure PV has a bias. It's a healty bias, IMHO. In PV's defense...

Who wouldn't hate a person that proclaims that human stupidity is infinite?
Who wouldn't despise a guy who states that the secret to success is
knowing how to hide your plagiarized sources (H.G. Wells and Italians)?
Who wouldn't be annoyed by a OneStone who proclaims there's no force
of gravity and won't walk off a high rise building to demonstrate?
Who wouldn't get bothered by a person who states God doesn't play
dice and never explains then why does God make so many dice to play?
And so on...

Btw, ever see the movie IQ (1994)? Remember its theme?
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=meg+ryan+einstein
Its theme is how to fake being a physicist to get Meg to make/act
understanding faces while looking at one simplest Hamiltonian equation.
Meg gets it! Meg's in love! ... silly cute movie with a hidden message.

> But I think his focus and that of some others is misleading.
> It isn't helpful just to say this or that theory is Wrong.
> It is more that our current theories are incomplete.
> Lets discuss the edges of our knowledge. There are questions
> to be asked. Simply posting that this or that person is Wrong
> only leads to the flame wars that currently seem a permanent
> part of this group.

In all fairness, those who call others' ideas wrong, rarely offer any
specifics or alternatives as to why wrong. Let them babble, no harm done.
You know... The ancient old idea, if an infinite number of monkeys
typed randomly, they'd almost always write/read better than JM. He he...

> All of us need to take a step back, take a deep breath,
> and discuss these issues calmly and rationally.
>
> I sincerely hope this sparks some better discussions
> in this group.
>
> see you around
> ed

Good luck and have fun!

[Edward Prochak]

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 9:30:14 AM UTC-4, Mahipal wrote:
> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:05:32 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > Even the kooks and trolls here I think would agree that
> > science is important.
>
> Kepler, Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Pangaea Guy, ...
> were all kooks/cranks. Once.

but they backed their proposals with evidence.

Most kooks here seem to think the one with the most posts wins.

>
> First, see what happens to a thread when realKookHVAC
> intervenes? Get used to it.
>
> > Well Daniel Whiteson, Jorge Cham have some comments on this
> > as posted here-
> > https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/we-live-in-a-pre-truth-universe/
>
> Funny article. Seems inspired by a discussion you and I had, perhaps
> less than a week before.

Yes I think so.

>
> > This article points out something I (and others) have
> > mentioned before. It begins:
> >
> > "There are no uncharted lands waiting for ships to find
> > their shores, and few if any untasted fruits waiting
> > for human lips. Many grand mysteries of the Universe
> > have been cracked open by science, from the makeup of
> > matter on Earth to the nature of the stars in the sky.
> > The child who marvels at the adventures of Magellan or
> > wonders about how the Universe works might worry:
> > What is left for me to discover?
> >
> > Our answer should be: Well, almost everything."
>
> Oh the futility! It's all been discovered. Not!
>
> > If you disagree with relativity, wait another hundred
> > years or so, it will be updated. If you think there is
> > more to learn about weather phenomenon, yes we will
> > find more and better models of climate.
>
> Have never seen SR applied in real engineering.
> Also, weather is not climate. Periodicity of each.

yes I did mix the two a little.

>
> > But that answer will be yes and our knowledge will grow
> > only if we let the younger generations know that
> > we don't know everything.
>
> Well, you EdJi are sane, not a spokesperson for Settled Sciences.
>
> > The article concludes:
> >
> > "As Adam Gopnik wrote in the New Yorker: “Every few weeks
> > or so, in the Science Times, we find out that some basic
> > question of the universe has now been answered—but why,
> > we wonder, weren’t we told about the puzzle until after
> > it was solved?” When we talk about science to the public,
> > we need to explain what we have discovered, but we should
> > also not be afraid to tout our ignorance. When we introduce
> > the grand mysteries, we make the case for the importance
> > of further exploration."
>
> That's a very good point. What are the puzzles them scientists are
> going to resolve every few weeks? Well, what are they? What's
> scheduled for press release and when When WHEN?! Great point.
>

You know, that might be a nice journal to create:
The Journal of Open Questions

> > In some ways PV, JM, John and others here are doing a service:
> > questioning the established science. This is one reason why
> > I respond to PV's posts for example. He at least tries to
> > bring some evidence to his posts.
>
> PV literally posts links/quotes of many other reasonable scientists.
> Yes, sure PV has a bias. It's a healty bias, IMHO. In PV's defense...
>
> Who wouldn't hate a person that proclaims that human stupidity is infinite?

I thought the most recent US Presidential election
proved Einstein was right! 8^)

> Who wouldn't despise a guy who states that the secret to success is
> knowing how to hide your plagiarized sources (H.G. Wells and Italians)?

You're reaching there.

> Who wouldn't be annoyed by a OneStone who proclaims there's no force
> of gravity and won't walk off a high rise building to demonstrate?

Huh?

> Who wouldn't get bothered by a person who states God doesn't play
> dice and never explains then why does God make so many dice to play?
> And so on...
>
> Btw, ever see the movie IQ (1994)? Remember its theme?
> https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=meg+ryan+einstein
> Its theme is how to fake being a physicist to get Meg to make/act
> understanding faces while looking at one simplest Hamiltonian equation.
> Meg gets it! Meg's in love! ... silly cute movie with a hidden message.
>

Don't think I saw it. Putting it on my list.

> > But I think his focus and that of some others is misleading.
> > It isn't helpful just to say this or that theory is Wrong.
> > It is more that our current theories are incomplete.
> > Lets discuss the edges of our knowledge. There are questions
> > to be asked. Simply posting that this or that person is Wrong
> > only leads to the flame wars that currently seem a permanent
> > part of this group.
>
> In all fairness, those who call others' ideas wrong, rarely offer any
> specifics or alternatives as to why wrong. Let them babble, no harm done.
> You know... The ancient old idea, if an infinite number of monkeys
> typed randomly, they'd almost always write/read better than JM. He he...

8^)

>
> > All of us need to take a step back, take a deep breath,
> > and discuss these issues calmly and rationally.
> >
> > I sincerely hope this sparks some better discussions
> > in this group.
> >
> > see you around
> > ed
>
> Good luck and have fun!
>
> -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”

You too.
ed

[benj]

On 04/27/2017 12:16 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:> On Thursday, April 27,

2017 at 9:30:14 AM UTC-4, Mahipal wrote:
>> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:05:32 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>> Even the kooks and trolls here I think would agree that
>>> science is important.
>>
>> Kepler, Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Pangaea Guy, ...
>> were all kooks/cranks. Once.
>
> but they backed their proposals with evidence.

Actually they didn't. And what "suggestive" data they did have was
totally ignored by those in authority just as you see right here today.

Namely if they don't even look at what they say, then that data does not
exist. And if they are kooks then I'm justified in not paying any
attention to them. Nothing changes. Establishment still uses same old
methods to cover it's own ass.

> Most kooks here seem to think the one with the most posts wins.

Obviously nobody "here" is going to "win" this is all recreation. If
anyone wanted a real discussion of the future of science they could
start with my recent book on the subject (hypersphere.us) and pick it
apart. Of course that is not what they want to do. Instead, there is an
effort to totally disrupt all real discussions to marginalize any idea
not accepted by the "establishment". What is going on in most all media
and discussion today is politics, not science. That is fallout from WWII.

Won't work and proof is right here. Once you have a "journal of open
questions" it concentrates heresy all in one place which makes it a
prime target for those wishing to stamp heresy out. The operations in
this newsgroup (and it's degeneration from discussions of real physics
questions) prove it. There has been a physics forum created for just
such a purpose and it's not popular. Even I'm not there though I can't
really say why not. My basic choice is to put your ideas on a website
and then viewers can judge if it's "kook" or not and the validity of the
science for themselves.

>>> In some ways PV, JM, John and others here are doing a service:
>>> questioning the established science. This is one reason why
>>> I respond to PV's posts for example. He at least tries to
>>> bring some evidence to his posts.
>>
>> PV literally posts links/quotes of many other reasonable scientists.
>> Yes, sure PV has a bias. It's a healty bias, IMHO. In PV's defense...
>>
>> Who wouldn't hate a person that proclaims that human stupidity is
infinite?
>
> I thought the most recent US Presidential election
> proved Einstein was right! 8^)

Yeah, that's the idea. Take USENET away from politics and return to
actual scientific proof, like that theory...

[Edward Prochak]

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 1:08:58 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> On 04/27/2017 12:16 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:> On Thursday, April 27,
> 2017 at 9:30:14 AM UTC-4, Mahipal wrote:
> >> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:05:32 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> >>> Even the kooks and trolls here I think would agree that
> >>> science is important.
> >>
> >> Kepler, Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Pangaea Guy, ...
> >> were all kooks/cranks. Once.
> >
> > but they backed their proposals with evidence.
>
> Actually they didn't. And what "suggestive" data they did have was
> totally ignored by those in authority just as you see right here today.

Kepler and Galileo definitely had data that was more than "suggestive".

>
> Namely if they don't even look at what they say, then that data does not
> exist. And if they are kooks then I'm justified in not paying any
> attention to them. Nothing changes. Establishment still uses same old
> methods to cover it's own ass.

Worthless comment. You think John, PV, JM, or AP will someday
be noted in history for their contributions to science?

>
> > Most kooks here seem to think the one with the most posts wins.
>
> Obviously nobody "here" is going to "win" this is all recreation. If
> anyone wanted a real discussion of the future of science they could
> start with my recent book on the subject (hypersphere.us) and pick it
> apart. Of course that is not what they want to do. Instead, there is an
> effort to totally disrupt all real discussions to marginalize any idea
> not accepted by the "establishment". What is going on in most all media
> and discussion today is politics, not science. That is fallout from WWII.

You impress me as one of those putting forth an effort
to totally disrupt all real discussion. If you really have
the Physic background you claim, then I think you need to
change your methods of discussion here.
>
[]

> >>
> >> PV literally posts links/quotes of many other reasonable scientists.
> >> Yes, sure PV has a bias. It's a healty bias, IMHO. In PV's defense...
> >>
> >> Who wouldn't hate a person that proclaims that human stupidity is
> infinite?
> >
> > I thought the most recent US Presidential election
> > proved Einstein was right! 8^)
>
> Yeah, that's the idea. Take USENET away from politics and return to
> actual scientific proof, like that theory...

I don't think Trump knows about USENET.

SO as for turning this back to actual science talk:
What do you think are the key questions in Physics today?

ed

[Serg io]

On 4/24/2017 8:05 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>
> Even the kooks and trolls here I think would agree that
> science is important.
>
> Well Daniel Whiteson, Jorge Cham have some comments on this
> as posted here-
> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/we-live-in-a-pre-truth-universe/
>
> This article points out something I (and others) have

>

> I sincerely hope this sparks some better discussions
> in this group.
>
> see you around
> ed
>

the article is not real science at all,

just broad blather, conjectured generalizations to non-scientists.

it is pandering to democrats


"better discussions" is using math, and physics, equations...

and not the trolling stuff........

[James McGinn]

It's comical listening to non-scientists like this idiot Sergio tell us about science.

Sergio, you're a moron. Go away.

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 10:40:31 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:

> > >> Kepler, Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Pangaea Guy, ...
> > >> were all kooks/cranks. Once.
> > >
> > > but they backed their proposals with evidence.
> >
> > Actually they didn't. And what "suggestive" data they did have was
> > totally ignored by those in authority just as you see right here today.
>
> Kepler and Galileo definitely had data that was more than "suggestive".

Right. Galileo had a model (theory) that was superior. Galileo's opponents were people that acted as scientists but that actually were functioning more like priests. Both used data. And, in fact, they both used the same data. So data isn't the distinguishing factor between a real scientist and the numerous pretenders.

The scientific method is the distinguishing factor. Galileo had data that refuted the standard model of the time and the dipshit pretenders refused to consider it.

Science is filled with priests who no longer employ the scientific method. All they do is regurgitate what is known. These idiots can't handle real arguments. They aren't scientists. They are just believers.

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 10:40:31 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:

> You impress me as one of those putting forth an effort
> to totally disrupt all real discussion.

Ed, your problem is you don't complete your arguments. You present some data. You tell us your opinion. But you don't really have an argument. So it's about impossible to take you seriously.

[benj]

On 4/27/2017 1:40 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 1:08:58 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
>> On 04/27/2017 12:16 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:> On Thursday, April 27,
>> 2017 at 9:30:14 AM UTC-4, Mahipal wrote:
>> >> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:05:32 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
>> >>> Even the kooks and trolls here I think would agree that
>> >>> science is important.
>> >>
>> >> Kepler, Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Pangaea Guy, ...
>> >> were all kooks/cranks. Once.
>> >
>> > but they backed their proposals with evidence.
>>
>> Actually they didn't. And what "suggestive" data they did have was
>> totally ignored by those in authority just as you see right here today.
>
> Kepler and Galileo definitely had data that was more than "suggestive".

"more than" is relative. I'd note that the old theories did work and are
still used today.

>> Namely if they don't even look at what they say, then that data does not
>> exist. And if they are kooks then I'm justified in not paying any
>> attention to them. Nothing changes. Establishment still uses same old
>> methods to cover it's own ass.
>
> Worthless comment. You think John, PV, JM, or AP will someday
> be noted in history for their contributions to science?

"worthless" is just your opinion. My opinion of PV JM or AP is also
irrelevant. Correct scientific method is to examine each of their claims
and test them against know facts. Note that facts are MEASUREMENTS not
opinions or accepted theories or Odds famous textbooks. To simply
dismiss new ideas based upon nothing but personal (and establishment)
belief is unscience.

>> > Most kooks here seem to think the one with the most posts wins.
>>
>> Obviously nobody "here" is going to "win" this is all recreation. If
>> anyone wanted a real discussion of the future of science they could
>> start with my recent book on the subject (hypersphere.us) and pick it
>> apart. Of course that is not what they want to do. Instead, there is an
>> effort to totally disrupt all real discussions to marginalize any idea
>> not accepted by the "establishment". What is going on in most all media
>> and discussion today is politics, not science. That is fallout from WWII.
>
> You impress me as one of those putting forth an effort
> to totally disrupt all real discussion. If you really have
> the Physic background you claim, then I think you need to
> change your methods of discussion here.

One must fight fire with fire. Given how few are interested in any
actual science discussion, it's no wonder none takes place. Have you
been to my kook website? Have you examined the wild claims there? Bet
you haven't. None of the disrupters have for sure. They use the
"unscience" methods I just discussed above. IS that your way too?

>> >>
>> >> PV literally posts links/quotes of many other reasonable scientists.
>> >> Yes, sure PV has a bias. It's a healty bias, IMHO. In PV's defense...
>> >>
>> >> Who wouldn't hate a person that proclaims that human stupidity is
>> infinite?
>> >
>> > I thought the most recent US Presidential election
>> > proved Einstein was right! 8^)
>>
>> Yeah, that's the idea. Take USENET away from politics and return to
>> actual scientific proof, like that theory...
>
> I don't think Trump knows about USENET.

Um, what Trump does NOT know about is probably too vast a subject for
consideration here.

> SO as for turning this back to actual science talk:
> What do you think are the key questions in Physics today?

I have listed 11 new viewpoints in my last book which I indicate could
be central to future questions in physics. Hawking's idea that almost
everything is known in science today is amazingly unthinking hubris. One
need only look as far as a list of "forbidden topics" to get a hint
where the future lies.

Where do you think it lies? Filling in a few blank spots in tables and
we are done? As a well known physicist once remarked to me: "Don't be
like the guy who lost a quarter over there, but is looking here because
the light is better.

[benj]

On 4/27/2017 2:07 PM, Serg io wrote:
> On 4/24/2017 8:05 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>
>> Even the kooks and trolls here I think would agree that
>> science is important.
>>
>> Well Daniel Whiteson, Jorge Cham have some comments on this
>> as posted here-
>> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/we-live-in-a-pre-truth-universe/
>>
>>
>> This article points out something I (and others) have
>
>>
>> I sincerely hope this sparks some better discussions
>> in this group.
>>
>> see you around
>> ed
>>
>
> the article is not real science at all,
>
> just broad blather, conjectured generalizations to non-scientists.
>
> it is pandering to democrats

True. The scientific in Scientific American has been gone for a long
time. It's basically a puff piece seeking to show how "humble" the
author is by touting how we really know little about how things work in
general. Of course, on the other hand he is a working scientist
physicist (presumably) who has co-authored a popular book on the subject
with a cartoonist. No doubt cartoons are the future of all knowledge of
the universe.

> "better discussions" is using math, and physics, equations...
>
> and not the trolling stuff........

MAth works for details and extrapolation, but one begins with ideas and
observations. To place math as more real than reality is why science
(especially physics) is in such a big mess today.

[benj]

Come on McFly. You cannot possibly be DEFENDING the establishment drivel
that pours out of Scientific American today, can you?

[benj]

Exactly. Note that the arguements were not against his model but against
the idea that "man" namely Earth was created as the pinnacle and center
of the universe. The argument was not about models, In fact the old
epicycle model is still used in calculating planetariums.

[benj]

Ed is just one more HVAC and others who say Truth is what I SAY it is.

[James McGinn]

They're just idiots. They know some scientific facts but they don't really know how to dispute a model. I call them chuck ladies.

[James McGinn]

You can't really be defending dumbass Sergio, can you?

[HVAC]

BJ quacked

I have listed 11 new viewpoints in my last book which I indicate could
be central to future questions in physics. Hawking's idea that almost
everything is known in science today is amazingly unthinking hubris. One
need only look as far as a list of "forbidden topics" to get a hint
where the future lies.

---------------

If it's forbidden how do you know about it? There are no forbidden topics in science.
The reason your precious ghosts and esp and remote viewing, etc, don't get researched is because they already have been. Long ago. Many times. Every controlled test reported failure.

[Mahipal]

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 5:01:33 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> On 4/27/2017 1:40 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 1:08:58 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> >> On 04/27/2017 12:16 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:> On Thursday, April 27,
> >> 2017 at 9:30:14 AM UTC-4, Mahipal wrote:
> >> >> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:05:32 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> >> >>> Even the kooks and trolls here I think would agree that
> >> >>> science is important.
> >> >>
> >> >> Kepler, Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Pangaea Guy, ...
> >> >> were all kooks/cranks. Once.
> >> >
> >> > but they backed their proposals with evidence.
> >>
> >> Actually they didn't. And what "suggestive" data they did have was
> >> totally ignored by those in authority just as you see right here today.

Yes! No matter how true the actual-facts, their alternative-facts are more true.

That exchange is too funny good! I laughed Laughed LAUGHED! Still laughing.

> > SO as for turning this back to actual science talk:
> > What do you think are the key questions in Physics today?
>
> I have listed 11 new viewpoints in my last book which I indicate could
> be central to future questions in physics. Hawking's idea that almost
> everything is known in science today is amazingly unthinking hubris. One
> need only look as far as a list of "forbidden topics" to get a hint
> where the future lies.
>
> Where do you think it lies? Filling in a few blank spots in tables and
> we are done? As a well known physicist once remarked to me: "Don't be
> like the guy who lost a quarter over there, but is looking here because
> the light is better.

That's the same as The Lost Keys Paradox. I'll search for my lost keys
under the light because I won't be able to see/find them in the dark.

[Mahipal]

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 12:16:08 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 9:30:14 AM UTC-4, Mahipal wrote:
> > On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:05:32 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > > Even the kooks and trolls here I think would agree that
> > > science is important.
> >
> > Kepler, Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Pangaea Guy, ...
> > were all kooks/cranks. Once.
>
> but they backed their proposals with evidence.

See BenjJi's response. I need not reinvent any wheel.

> Most kooks here seem to think the one with the most posts wins.

They are lonely humans. They need attention. Very few can actually
engage others in a discussion. Of course, Quantity is never Quality.

> > First, see what happens to a thread when realKookHVAC
> > intervenes? Get used to it.
> >
> > > Well Daniel Whiteson, Jorge Cham have some comments on this
> > > as posted here-
> > > https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/we-live-in-a-pre-truth-universe/
> >
> > Funny article. Seems inspired by a discussion you and I had, perhaps
> > less than a week before.
>
> Yes I think so.

I've seen that kind of Usenet influence in many forms. Just happens.
Those lurkers, silent readers, plagiarists, ... are called Usenet Sharks.

> > > This article points out something I (and others) have
> > > mentioned before. It begins:
> > >
> > > "There are no uncharted lands waiting for ships to find
> > > their shores, and few if any untasted fruits waiting
> > > for human lips. Many grand mysteries of the Universe
> > > have been cracked open by science, from the makeup of
> > > matter on Earth to the nature of the stars in the sky.
> > > The child who marvels at the adventures of Magellan or
> > > wonders about how the Universe works might worry:
> > > What is left for me to discover?
> > >
> > > Our answer should be: Well, almost everything."
> >
> > Oh the futility! It's all been discovered. Not!
> >
> > > If you disagree with relativity, wait another hundred
> > > years or so, it will be updated. If you think there is
> > > more to learn about weather phenomenon, yes we will
> > > find more and better models of climate.
> >
> > Have never seen SR applied in real engineering.
> > Also, weather is not climate. Periodicity of each.
>
> yes I did mix the two a little.

No big deal. English is a foreign language to me, so I try harder.

> > > But that answer will be yes and our knowledge will grow
> > > only if we let the younger generations know that
> > > we don't know everything.
> >
> > Well, you EdJi are sane, not a spokesperson for Settled Sciences.
> >
> > > The article concludes:
> > >
> > > "As Adam Gopnik wrote in the New Yorker: “Every few weeks
> > > or so, in the Science Times, we find out that some basic
> > > question of the universe has now been answered—but why,
> > > we wonder, weren’t we told about the puzzle until after
> > > it was solved?” When we talk about science to the public,
> > > we need to explain what we have discovered, but we should
> > > also not be afraid to tout our ignorance. When we introduce
> > > the grand mysteries, we make the case for the importance
> > > of further exploration."
> >
> > That's a very good point. What are the puzzles them scientists are
> > going to resolve every few weeks? Well, what are they? What's
> > scheduled for press release and when When WHEN?! Great point.
>
> You know, that might be a nice journal to create:
> The Journal of Open Questions

It's a deeper more subtle problem than that can be resolved by a new journal.

> > > In some ways PV, JM, John and others here are doing a service:
> > > questioning the established science. This is one reason why
> > > I respond to PV's posts for example. He at least tries to
> > > bring some evidence to his posts.
> >
> > PV literally posts links/quotes of many other reasonable scientists.
> > Yes, sure PV has a bias. It's a healty bias, IMHO. In PV's defense...
> >
> > Who wouldn't hate a person that proclaims that human stupidity is infinite?
>
> I thought the most recent US Presidential election
> proved Einstein was right! 8^)

I can only laugh at that! Too funny, even if scary as TrumpET's USA!

> > Who wouldn't despise a guy who states that the secret to success is
> > knowing how to hide your plagiarized sources (H.G. Wells and Italians)?
>
> You're reaching there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olinto_De_Pretto Italian industrialist.
H. G. Wells' The Time Machine. Einstein read that book when a teenager.

> > Who wouldn't be annoyed by a OneStone who proclaims there's no force
> > of gravity and won't walk off a high rise building to demonstrate?
>
> Huh?

Well for the longest time, it has been promulgated that there exists
no gravitational force. It's all curvature of spacetime due to mass.
You've seen the net/hamper analogies where the net dips in proportion
to one's ass mass -- male, female, or HVAC.

Well, if there exists no gravity force, please walk off a fifth story or
higher building. Prove that theory by experiment, walk off the Planck!

> > Who wouldn't get bothered by a person who states God doesn't play
> > dice and never explains then why does God make so many dice to play?
> > And so on...
> >
> > Btw, ever see the movie IQ (1994)? Remember its theme?
> > https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=meg+ryan+einstein
> > Its theme is how to fake being a physicist to get Meg to make/act
> > understanding faces while looking at one simplest Hamiltonian equation.
> > Meg gets it! Meg's in love! ... silly cute movie with a hidden message.
>
> Don't think I saw it. Putting it on my list.

It's a light hearted comedy, but the hidden message is not explicit.
We can discuss it after you Ed get time to watch it.

> > > But I think his focus and that of some others is misleading.
> > > It isn't helpful just to say this or that theory is Wrong.
> > > It is more that our current theories are incomplete.
> > > Lets discuss the edges of our knowledge. There are questions
> > > to be asked. Simply posting that this or that person is Wrong
> > > only leads to the flame wars that currently seem a permanent
> > > part of this group.
> >
> > In all fairness, those who call others' ideas wrong, rarely offer any
> > specifics or alternatives as to why wrong. Let them babble, no harm done.
> > You know... The ancient old idea, if an infinite number of monkeys
> > typed randomly, they'd almost always write/read better than JM. He he...
>
> 8^)

I couldn't resist making that observation. He he...

[Edward Prochak]

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 2:07:36 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
> On 4/24/2017 8:05 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> >
> > Even the kooks and trolls here I think would agree that
> > science is important.
> >
> > Well Daniel Whiteson, Jorge Cham have some comments on this
> > as posted here-
> > https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/we-live-in-a-pre-truth-universe/
> >
> > This article points out something I (and others) have
>
> >
> > I sincerely hope this sparks some better discussions
> > in this group.
> >
> > see you around
> > ed
> >
>
> the article is not real science at all,
>
> just broad blather, conjectured generalizations to non-scientists.
>
> it is pandering to democrats
>

It is not about science, but about how science presents itself.
I think this can be viewed as pointing out how we educate
the next generation of scientists.

>
> "better discussions" is using math, and physics, equations...
>
> and not the trolling stuff........

I agree we should have more equations, data and such in our
discussions. But the article is about the wider view of
science.

We teach science in school with absolute authority:
* there is only one right answer to each test question.
* these are the LAWS of the universe.
* science teachers without science degrees.

We don't really teach the joy of discovery. The wonder
of the mysteries of the universe still unsolved.
The history of how we got to our current level of
knowledge and by implication, how far we have yet
to go.

We end up with people who do not really understand
science in the positions of power that really need
to understand the methods and tools we can provide.

So yes it is a political commentary, but one that
calls out our responsibility as scientists.

At least that is my view of the article and the
implications I took from it.

ed

[Edward Prochak]

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 2:27:08 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 10:40:31 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
>
> > > >> Kepler, Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Pangaea Guy, ...
> > > >> were all kooks/cranks. Once.
> > > >
> > > > but they backed their proposals with evidence.
> > >
> > > Actually they didn't. And what "suggestive" data they did have was
> > > totally ignored by those in authority just as you see right here today.
> >
> > Kepler and Galileo definitely had data that was more than "suggestive".
>
> Right. Galileo had a model (theory) that was superior.
> Galileo's opponents were people that acted as scientists
> but that actually were functioning more like priests. Both
> used data. And, in fact, they both used the same data. So
> data isn't the distinguishing factor between a real scientist
> and the numerous pretenders.

As has been pointed out (by you I think), those in authority
refused to examine the data (look in the telescope). So I
still think data is a key distinguishing factor.

>
> The scientific method is the distinguishing factor.
> Galileo had data that refuted the standard model of
> the time and the dipshit pretenders refused to consider it.

See the data is the key. Testing the hypothesis.

>
> Science is filled with priests who no longer employ
> the scientific method. All they do is regurgitate
> what is known. These idiots can't handle real arguments.
> They aren't scientists. They are just believers.

You keep making this claim but you disagree with
your own point. It isn't about arguments, it is about
the data and testing the hypothesis.

ed

[Edward Prochak]

Sorry JM. no flame war today.

[Edward Prochak]

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 5:01:33 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> On 4/27/2017 1:40 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 1:08:58 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:

>[]

> >>
> >> Actually they didn't. And what "suggestive" data they did have was
> >> totally ignored by those in authority just as you see right here today.
> >
> > Kepler and Galileo definitely had data that was more than "suggestive".
>
> "more than" is relative. I'd note that the old theories did work and are
> still used today.

Could you tell me who is still using epicycles today?

>
> >> Namely if they don't even look at what they say, then that data does not
> >> exist. And if they are kooks then I'm justified in not paying any
> >> attention to them. Nothing changes. Establishment still uses same old
> >> methods to cover it's own ass.
> >
> > Worthless comment. You think John, PV, JM, or AP will someday
> > be noted in history for their contributions to science?
>
> "worthless" is just your opinion. My opinion of PV JM or AP is also
> irrelevant. Correct scientific method is to examine each of their claims
> and test them against know facts. Note that facts are MEASUREMENTS not
> opinions or accepted theories or Odds famous textbooks.

I see here is where we disagree. Currently accepted theories
carry weight Because they have been tested with known facts.

So a new proposal that intends to replace current theory
has two hurdles to jump:
1. match all the facts that support the current theory
2. include a prediction that differs from current theory and
can be tested.

> To simply
> dismiss new ideas based upon nothing but personal (and establishment)
> belief is unscience.

You mean unscientific.

for part A of your comment to dismiss an idea
"based upon nothing but personal belief",
amazingly I agree.

for part B of your comment to dismiss an idea
"based upon establishment belief",
I would not use "belief" there, and with that
change would strongly disagree.

> >> > Most kooks here seem to think the one with the most posts wins.
> >>
> >> Obviously nobody "here" is going to "win" this is all recreation. If
> >> anyone wanted a real discussion of the future of science they could
> >> start with my recent book on the subject (hypersphere.us) and pick it
> >> apart. Of course that is not what they want to do. Instead, there is an
> >> effort to totally disrupt all real discussions to marginalize any idea
> >> not accepted by the "establishment". What is going on in most all media
> >> and discussion today is politics, not science. That is fallout from WWII.
> >
> > You impress me as one of those putting forth an effort
> > to totally disrupt all real discussion. If you really have
> > the Physic background you claim, then I think you need to
> > change your methods of discussion here.
>
> One must fight fire with fire. Given how few are interested in any
> actual science discussion, it's no wonder none takes place. Have you
> been to my kook website? Have you examined the wild claims there? Bet
> you haven't. None of the disrupters have for sure. They use the
> "unscience" methods I just discussed above. IS that your way too?

Haven't visited any kook website.

I am trying to keep this discussion civil.
You have seen my posts, you can decide if I am a "disrupter"
or a decent chap you disagrees with some of your views.

[]

> >> > I thought the most recent US Presidential election
> >> > proved Einstein was right! 8^)
> >>
> >> Yeah, that's the idea. Take USENET away from politics and return to
> >> actual scientific proof, like that theory...
> >
> > I don't think Trump knows about USENET.
>
> Um, what Trump does NOT know about is probably too vast a subject for
> consideration here.

LOL

>
> > SO as for turning this back to actual science talk:
> > What do you think are the key questions in Physics today?
>
> I have listed 11 new viewpoints in my last book which I indicate could
> be central to future questions in physics. Hawking's idea that almost
> everything is known in science today is amazingly unthinking hubris. One
> need only look as far as a list of "forbidden topics" to get a hint
> where the future lies.

In that case, Hawking should look at the history of physics.
"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now,
All that remains is more and more precise measurement."
-- Lord Kelvin

Scary, we agree again.

>
> Where do you think it lies? Filling in a few blank spots in tables and
> we are done? As a well known physicist once remarked to me: "Don't be
> like the guy who lost a quarter over there, but is looking here because
> the light is better.

Right now I think a LOT more is yet to be discovered.
We really do not know the nature of reality, only small
fragments of it. For example what our daily experience
tells us are solid materials are really mostly empty
space with many pieces. But we often think of those
pieces (e.g., protons) as being solid when closer testing
shows even they are composites. And string theory, if true,
would inform us there is nothing solid, not even the
fundamental particles.

I am most excited by the discoveries in cosmology that may
come about based on gravity waves.

In summary, to make it clear to you, I'll quote a close
friend of mine (PhD Physics):
"All theories are wrong, some are useful."

approaching science that way reminds you that we can
always improve. It is incremental. And it brings a
humble attitude.

I'm not trying to be "RIGHT" or to proclaim the "TRUTH".
I only want to learn more.
ed

[James McGinn]

On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 8:54:22 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:

> > Right. Galileo had a model (theory) that was superior.
> > Galileo's opponents were people that acted as scientists
> > but that actually were functioning more like priests. Both
> > used data. And, in fact, they both used the same data. So
> > data isn't the distinguishing factor between a real scientist
> > and the numerous pretenders.
>
> As has been pointed out (by you I think), those in authority
> refused to examine the data (look in the telescope). So I
> still think data is a key distinguishing factor.
> >
> > The scientific method is the distinguishing factor.
> > Galileo had data that refuted the standard model of
> > the time and the dipshit pretenders refused to consider it.
>
> See the data is the key. Testing the hypothesis.

Galileo's dimwitted opponents failed to apply the same scrutiny to THEIR OWN hypothesis. Just like yourself, the idiots assumed the data as part of their model. THE DATA IS NOT A PART OF ANY MODEL. IT STANDS INDEPENDENT FROM THE EXISTING MODEL AND FROM THE CHALLENGING MODEL.

I can't tell you how many morons have told me that I have to bring new data. That's not the way it works. Everybody has access to the same data and the data is part of either of the competing models.

> >
> > Science is filled with priests who no longer employ
> > the scientific method. All they do is regurgitate
> > what is known. These idiots can't handle real arguments.
> > They aren't scientists. They are just believers.
>
> You keep making this claim but you disagree with
> your own point. It isn't about arguments, it is about
> the data and testing the hypothesis.

No, dumbass, it's about comparing both of the competing hypotheses in an equally rigorous manner against the existing evidence.

The error you engineers make is to only compare the new hypothesis against the existing data, which is just stupid and nonscientific.

[James McGinn]

On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 9:28:19 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:

> Could you tell me who is still using epicycles today?

The point is that even now epicycles and the whole Ptolemaic celestial system does a pretty good job of predicting the positions of the stars and planets.

> > "worthless" is just your opinion. My opinion of PV JM or AP is also
> > irrelevant. Correct scientific method is to examine each of their claims
> > and test them against know facts. Note that facts are MEASUREMENTS not
> > opinions or accepted theories or Odds famous textbooks.
>
> I see here is where we disagree. Currently accepted theories
> carry weight Because they have been tested with known facts.

Unfortunately most of your "known facts" are little more than tradition, superstition, and tradition based on superstition. And that is especially true when the subject matter involves water and meteorology (and it's even worse in climatology).

>
> So a new proposal that intends to replace current theory
> has two hurdles to jump:
> 1. match all the facts that support the current theory

The fact don't "support current theory," you ignorant engineer. Facts don't support any theory.

> 2. include a prediction that differs from current theory and
> can be tested.

You don't get it. You have the same burden of proof. Both hypothesis have to meet this criteria.

>
> > To simply
> > dismiss new ideas based upon nothing but personal (and establishment)
> > belief is unscience.
>
> You mean unscientific.
>
> for part A of your comment to dismiss an idea
> "based upon nothing but personal belief",
> amazingly I agree.
>
> for part B of your comment to dismiss an idea
> "based upon establishment belief",
> I would not use "belief" there, and with that
> change would strongly disagree.

Tradition based on superstition is not science.

Engineers think in terms of what is known. Scientists think in terms of what has not been proven false.

Engineers cannot make scientific discoveries and they are bad at distinguishing between things that look like they are true but are actually false.

I am a scientists, not an engineer. I can make scientific discoveries (and have) because I am more aware of what has not been proven false--a much larger set of data than that of engineers. And because I am not so gullible as to assume that what is considered known isn't actually just believed and not actually known. Because much of what is "known" actually has more to do with pandering to the lowest common denominator of the dull-witted voting public.

Consensus and group think kill scientific progress. Engineers generally don't have the intellectual tools to deal with it.

[Edward Prochak]

On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 1:06:03 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 9:28:19 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:

[]

> >
> > So a new proposal that intends to replace current theory
> > has two hurdles to jump:
> > 1. match all the facts that support the current theory
>
> The fact don't "support current theory," you ignorant engineer. Facts don't support any theory.
>
> > 2. include a prediction that differs from current theory and
> > can be tested.
>
> You don't get it. You have the same burden of proof.
> Both hypothesis have to meet this criteria.

YES, but current theory has already gone
through the testing process and succeeded.

the new theory is essentially starting from scratch.

>
>
> >
> > > To simply
> > > dismiss new ideas based upon nothing but personal (and establishment)
> > > belief is unscience.
> >
> > You mean unscientific.
> >
> > for part A of your comment to dismiss an idea
> > "based upon nothing but personal belief",
> > amazingly I agree.
> >
> > for part B of your comment to dismiss an idea
> > "based upon establishment belief",
> > I would not use "belief" there, and with that
> > change would strongly disagree.
>
> Tradition based on superstition is not science.

Nothing I said involves tradition or superstition,
so your comment is irrelevant.
[]

> >
> > In summary, to make it clear to you, I'll quote a close
> > friend of mine (PhD Physics):
> > "All theories are wrong, some are useful."
> >
> > approaching science that way reminds you that we can
> > always improve. It is incremental. And it brings a
> > humble attitude.
> >
> > I'm not trying to be "RIGHT" or to proclaim the "TRUTH".
> > I only want to learn more.
> > ed
>
>
> Engineers think in terms of what is known. Scientists
> think in terms of what has not been proven false.

JM, You have no clue how scientists think.

>
> Engineers cannot make scientific discoveries

LOL

> and they are bad at distinguishing between things
> that look like they are true but are actually false.
>
> I am a scientists, not an engineer.

You managed to clone yourself?
(sorry that was too nice a set up) 8^)

And your science training was done at Univ. of ____________?
(comon name the school, JM.)

ed

[James McGinn]

On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 11:25:28 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:

> > You don't get it. You have the same burden of proof.
> > Both hypothesis have to meet this criteria.
>
> YES, but current theory has already gone
> through the testing process and succeeded.

It's impossible to prove something true, dumbass.

> the new theory is essentially starting from scratch.

Who cares. They all use the same data. A new theory does not have to produce new data.

> Nothing I said involves tradition or superstition,
> so your comment is irrelevant.

You can never know that. All you can do is apply the scientific method in an OBJECTIVE manner, you nitwit.

> > Engineers think in terms of what is known. Scientists
> > think in terms of what has not been proven false.
>
> JM, You have no clue how scientists think.

I'm a scientists. You are a dimwitted engineer.

[benj]

Totally ignorant question. They are not forbidden to be known, they are
forbidden to be discussed. YOU are the prime example as you disrupt any
such conversations and ridicule the participants, not with any
scientific proof but with ridicule, ad hominems attacks and nothing but
your personal "opinion" that such is nonsense. Science does NOT rely on
your personal opinion for it's values. For example your statement that
all previous experiments were a "failure" is demonstrably false. Yet you
persist like all the other establishment believers, turning a blind eye
to facts and broadcasting your opinions as if they were irrefutable
truth. Needless to say you are nothing but a swindler and Luddite
inhibiting science and attempting to maintain the status Quo. You will
fail as have all those before you.

[benj]

ED is right on. Schools teach "settled science" to create willing
believers. And of course NO science is ever "settled". So instead of
teaching the scientific method which are the rules of discovery, they
teach you to memorize dogma which may or may not be correct or even
reasonable. And of course there is great pressure to do this because of
those in power funding science and using that funding to control the
dogma being disseminated. It's the other side of the coin to real
history being controlled and modulated by those in power for their own
interests. Of course the politicization of science hasn't been going on
as long as the spinning of history by the victors.

[HVAC]

BJ quacked

> If it's forbidden how do you know about it? There are no forbidden
> topics in science. The reason your precious ghosts and esp and remote
> viewing, etc, don't get researched is because they already have been.
> Long ago. Many times. Every controlled test reported failure.

Totally ignorant question. They are not forbidden to be known, they are
forbidden to be discussed. YOU are the prime example as you disrupt any
such conversations and ridicule the participants, not with any
scientific proof but with ridicule, ad hominems attacks and nothing but
your personal "opinion" that such is nonsense. Science does NOT rely on
your personal opinion for it's values. For example your statement that
all previous experiments were a "failure" is demonstrably false. Yet you
persist like all the other establishment believers, turning a blind eye
to facts and broadcasting your opinions as if they were irrefutable
truth. Needless to say you are nothing but a swindler and Luddite
inhibiting science and attempting to maintain the status Quo. You will
fail as have all those before you.

----------

Nope. I won't give an inch when it comes to allowing you to discuss your ghosts here. And that goes for all your other foolish beliefs.

All your beliefs deserve is ridicule and insults. You don't have a whiff what real science is. You're a buffoon with a keyboard.

Have a nice day!

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 11:34:17 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

> I'm a scientists.

No, Jim, that is impossible, judging from your past posts.

You are just another dumbfuck, and a dunbfuck you will always be!

[James McGinn]

On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 12:12:20 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:

> ED is right on. Schools teach "settled science" to create willing
> believers. And of course NO science is ever "settled". So instead of
> teaching the scientific method which are the rules of discovery, they
> teach you to memorize dogma which may or may not be correct or even
> reasonable. And of course there is great pressure to do this because of
> those in power funding science and using that funding to control the
> dogma being disseminated. It's the other side of the coin to real
> history being controlled and modulated by those in power for their own
> interests. Of course the politicization of science hasn't been going on
> as long as the spinning of history by the victors.

The human mind has very deep, subconscious ideological motives. These are hidden from us.

Your mind will, very often, not let you understand something that conflicts with, or has the potential to conflict with, your subconscious ideological beliefs.

Belief does not follow understanding. Understanding follows belief.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[James McGinn]

You can barely muster a coherent sentence, never mind an argument.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 1:02:56 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 12:33:55 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 11:34:17 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> >
> > > I'm a scientists.
> >
> > No, Jim, that is impossible, judging from your past posts.
> >

> > You are just another dumbfuck, and a dumbfuck you will always be!

>
> You can barely muster a coherent sentence, never mind an argument.

And YOU can't provide a single experiment or observation to support your own absurd position, not one! You've got nothing, and you never will!

The gaseous form of water exists below the boiling point of water and humid air will always be lighter than dry air, and no amount of bluster on your part will change these facts. Just because you are too stupid to find the proof yourself does not mean that it isn't there. Why don't you read a freaking textbook? Can't read?

[James McGinn]

The evidence that supports my position does need me to provide it. It is freely available for any and all to consider. The evidence that supports your dimwitted claim that I am wrong exists only in your imagination.

You loons need to leave science to scientists.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Did you hear the one about the guy that goes to buy a suit?
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16319&hilit=about+the+guy+that+goes+to+buy+a+suit

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 2:39:06 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

> The evidence that supports my position does need me to provide it.

The evidence that supports your position does not exist, period. No discussion of your position can be undertaken without your imaginary evidence.

[James McGinn]

Uh, er . . uh, steam tables.

Uh er.

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 11:07:36 AM UTC-7, Serg io wrote:
> On 4/24/2017 8:05 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> >
> > Even the kooks and trolls here I think would agree that
> > science is important.
> >
> > Well Daniel Whiteson, Jorge Cham have some comments on this
> > as posted here-
> > https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/we-live-in-a-pre-truth-universe/
> >
> > This article points out something I (and others) have
>
> >
> > I sincerely hope this sparks some better discussions
> > in this group.
> >
> > see you around
> > ed
> >
>
> the article is not real science at all,
>
> just broad blather, conjectured generalizations to non-scientists.
>
> it is pandering to democrats
>
>

> "better discussions" is using math, and physics, equations...
>
> and not the trolling stuff........

It's comical how often pretenders talk about math out of any context. It's nitwits like Sergio that sees math and since he doesn't understand it he assumes it represents something concise and sciencey.

Sergio, you are the dumbest of the dumb.

[Edward Prochak]

It's scary when we agree. even only partially.

> So instead of
> teaching the scientific method which are the rules of discovery, they
> teach you to memorize dogma which may or may not be correct or even
> reasonable. And of course there is great pressure to do this because of
> those in power funding science and using that funding to control the
> dogma being disseminated. It's the other side of the coin to real
> history being controlled and modulated by those in power for their own
> interests. Of course the politicization of science hasn't been going on
> as long as the spinning of history by the victors.

Note, the focus of my comments are to lower levels in schools
(grade schools and high schools), not higher academia. I do not
subscribe to the opinion above that this is all only to get funding.

ed

[Edward Prochak]

On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 12:38:04 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 11:07:36 AM UTC-7, Serg io wrote:

[]

> >
> > "better discussions" is using math, and physics, equations...
> >
> > and not the trolling stuff........
>
> It's comical how often pretenders talk about math out of any context.

It is even funnier those like you that deny the use and
purpose of mathematics in science, especially physics.

> It's nitwits like Sergio that sees math and since
> he doesn't understand it he assumes it represents
> something concise and sciencey.

[insult deleted]

JM, you have no clue about science and so take to
insults.

Did you remember the school where you studied science yet?
Any education in science at all? (high school?)

Have you ever met a real Physicist?

ed
(now watch the insults he spews!)

[hanson]

Look at the crackpottery of these 2 fanatical Einstein Dingleberries
in their devoted and unconditional worship of Albert's Sphincter, as...
"Yousuf Khan" <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
"Edward Prochak" <edpr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Dingleberry Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> []
>>> It's best not to feed the crank, Pentcho is one of well-known
>>> anti-Relativity cranks.
>>
Dingleberry Edward Prochak wrote:
>> At least he tries to discuss physics. Some of his questions
>> can be interesting. His point this time was rather easy to
>> contradict.
>
Dingleberry Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Any anti-Relativity crankiness is easy to disprove these days. I mean if
> you're anti-Relativity in 2017 there's something wrong with your head. I
> can understand being anti-Rel crank back in the 1950's, when the only
> examples of Relativity at work were some esoteric astrophysical
> phenomena.
>
> *** But these days, we're *engineering* with Relativity!!! The GPS
> satellites wouldn't even work if Relativity weren't known about.****
>
> We've even got tabletop atomic clocks that can reveal the difference in
> time dilation just moving the clock up from the floor to the table!
> There's no excuse to be an anti-Rel crank anymore, if you are, then
> you're just a lazy stubborn goat who is just trying to be difficult for
> the sake of being difficult.
>
hanson wrote:
See ***[... ]** above from Khan & Prochak, both of whom are
Jewish armchair physicists, whose agenda it is to make sure
that it seems that any physics advance or technologic invention
or improvement could not have been done without using
Judenphysik, like SR or GR ...
>
They, like other AshkeNazim kikes feel that it is their
duty to preserve Einstein's SR/GR crap as Yiddisher
cultural heritage.... ahahahaha... ROTFLMAO!
>
Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
GPS does not need relativity at all to operate correctly,
>
hanson wrote:
So, it is surprising that neither Khan nor Ed have
reposted kike Ashby's tripe of his "Relativity in the
Global Positioning System in which it took Kike Ashby
39 questionable & tortured steps to get to the 38 usec
delay, when & while any high school student or engineer,
can glean, for this particular situation, in 1 fell swoop, in
ONE SINGLE STEP, in good, old Newtonian ways, and
show that
>
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c^2 *86400 = 38 microsec/day ----
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c *86400 = 11.2... km drift /day ----
>
where m_e = mass of earth and h being the Space vehicle
height above the earth surface, which is corrected by standard
industrial ways by classical methods devoid of any SR/GR.
< http://tinyurl.com/622an2> or < http://tinyurl.com/57asbg>
<http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm>
>
No sales literature of any manufacturer that makes GPS
involved items ever mentions the use of SR or GR.
>
|||||||| ---- GPS NEVER NEEDED neither SR nor GR ---- |||||||||
||||| not for its design, manufacturing, testing nor operations. |||||
||||| --------- GPS was in operation LONG before... ------ |||||
||||| Einstein Dingleberries came along to nuzzle into the |||||
||||| show, hoping to get some credit away from Newton. |||||
>
||||| Albert's SR/GR is the Kosher Tax levied onto academia |||||
>
Khan & Ed, you in your sorry mental condition, don't even
see that it is common knowledge for more then 60+ years
now, and 2 years before Einstein puffed, when
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
wherein AE concluded that: SR is short for __STUPID RANT__
& GR being nothing but a __GULLIBLE RECITAL__, with
plenty of <http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery>
>
So, here, for your benefit, is Einstein's intellectual evolution,
which started with his 1905 paper, wherein ||AE|| wrote:
>
|||AE||| "the velocity of light 'c' in our theory (SR) plays
|||AE||| the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
>
From 1905 on, & during the next 3 decades when
Einstein was riding high on his Zionist financed wake
that put & kept him in the lime light, it became clearer
that
>
== Einstein & his contributions to physics is/are what
== Picasso's contributions are to the world of fine art,
== namely mental aberrations, Gedanken farts and
== his lunacies like:
>
||| AE:: "People like us, who _BELIEVE_ in physics,
||| AE:: know that the distinction between the
||| AE:: past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
||| AE:: persistent illusion."
||| AE:: "Space & time are NOT conditions in which we
||| AE:: live; they are simply modes in which we think."
>
That then was the Weltbild of these 2 Fartist kikes.
<http://tinyurl.com/2-Jewish-Fartists> ... yet Einstein
never had the guts to prove his SR/GR, by him simply
jumping out of a 5th story window & manipulating the
curvature of space & handling space-time, to avoid him
being splattered on the side walk, and thereby proving
his insistence that Gravity is not a force like Newton said.
>
But towards the end of his life, Einstein came clean &
__ Einstein himself became a relativity DENIER ____
& he changed his mind by 1954 when he declared that
>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] NO nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta?' aka photons.
>
And furthermore Einstein saw the handwriting on the wall,
when in 1954, a year before he died, he wrote to his
Jewish friend Besso:
>
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
>
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
>
|AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, my gravitation theory included."

|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
<http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein> with plenty of
<http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery> & so, ergo:
>
. ____ SR is short for STUPID RANT _____ and
. ____ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL _____.
>
or as expressed rather civilized by poster Tom Roberts
[TR], who, when he had a flash of lucidity, wrote:
>
[TR:] ___ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"__, iow:
. ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____, iow:
. ______ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
>
Up-shot:
Why then is SR/GR still so popular?
People hang on to & fanatically believe in all kind of shit,
which they do OBSERVE & MEASURE, like in "UFO's",
"Crop circles", the "Bible", the "Koran", "SR&GR" & etc,
etc., etc.... The list is long and like Einstein said:
>
|||AE:: "they are NOT conditions in which we live;
|||AE:: they are simply modes in which we think."
>
Once indoctrinated by any of these esoteric gags,
which are escapes from harsh reality, people do
build that into their Weltbild, proselytize for it and
defend it with their lives!!!.....
___ It is far easier to believe then to think! _____
>
Now Khan & Ed, all that not withstanding, have
your jollies and keep on worshipping Albert's sphincter
for it is more rewarding for you to worship then to think.
>
Thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahahanson

[hanson]

[James McGinn]

There never is any excuse for not addressing science in a direct manner:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/__GexlZmXlU/0vJocDtlCgAJ

Address the issue, you evasive twit.

[HVAC]

BJ quacked

ED is right on. Schools teach "settled science" to create willing
believers. And of course NO science is ever "settled". So instead of

teaching the scientific method which are the rules of discovery.
--------------

Whoa! BJ cares not a whit about science, the scientific method, nor anything that requires some skepticism. He is a true believer. A defender of the faith. He believes in everything from ufos to esp to ghosts. His paranormal state of mind is evidenced by his obsession with conspiracy theories. Everything from 9/11 to Pearl Harbor, to JFK.... BJ feels he and a select few know what's going on.

The rest of us are 'mainstream' scientists. I'm proud to be mainstream. They make 98.6% of all discoveries in science.

Meanwhile BJ prattles on about persistence of consciousness (He prefers that to calling them ghosts). Or he bloviates on remote viewing which programs were terminated by the US and Russian governments for being useless

[Mahipal]

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 11:54:29 AM UTC-4, HVAC wrote:
> BJ quacked
>> ED is right on. Schools teach "settled science" to create willing
>> believers. And of course NO science is ever "settled". So instead of
>> teaching the scientific method which are the rules of discovery.
> --------------
>
> Whoa! BJ cares not a whit about science, the scientific method, nor
> anything that requires some skepticism. He is a true believer. A
> defender of the faith. He believes in everything from ufos to esp to
> ghosts. His paranormal state of mind is evidenced by his obsession
> with conspiracy theories. Everything from 9/11 to Pearl Harbor, to
> JFK.... BJ feels he and a select few know what's going on.

Those three events are not the end-all or be-all of human history.

> The rest of us are 'mainstream' scientists. I'm proud to be
> mainstream. They make 98.6% of all discoveries in science.

So... it's BenjJi against the rest of us in the whole world? Cool! Go BenjJi!
May The Fourth Be With You. Always. Froth? Forth? I get so Dazed and Confused.

> Meanwhile BJ prattles on about persistence of consciousness (He
> prefers that to calling them ghosts). Or he bloviates on remote
> viewing which programs were terminated by the US and Russian
> governments for being useless

Hey HVAC, which college did you study any science at? Who were your
friends that sat next to you, side-by-side or front-or-back? Got any
teachers' names? Did they your friends graduate? Got Diploma, HVAC?

My new question to you HVAC: How much did you hate school School SCHOOL?

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”

[HVAC]

Loopy says

Hey HVAC, which college did you study any science at?

----------

I've told you before. I'll trade that information for your home address and phone number.

Who were your
friends that sat next to you, side-by-side or front-or-back?

----------

Sorry, that's classified.

Got any teachers' names?
----------

Sorry. Classified.

Did they your friends graduate? Got Diploma, HVAC?

----------

Yes

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 9:16:08 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:

> > Kepler, Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Pangaea Guy, ...
> > were all kooks/cranks. Once.
>
> but they backed their proposals with evidence.

Everybody uses the same evidence, dumbass.

They had theories that better explained the evidence. Their opponents failed to adequately test and reject the currently poplular theory. IOW, their opponents were incapable of seeing that the current theory was wrong. And that is because their opponents failed to properly understand scientific methods.

The same is true for much of science currently. Believers hide. They don't do science.

> Most kooks here seem to think the one with the most posts wins.

Ultimately, overwhelming the believers with facts is the only way to win because it silences them. Eventually the rest of the public notices their silence.

For example, because of me many now are beginning to notice the fact that meteorologists refuse to discuss storm theory.

The public is slow to pick up on things but history has shown that when they do it creates a stampede.

. . . . and I'm only getting started.

[Edward Prochak]

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 11:16:50 AM UTC-4, hanson wrote:
> Look at the crackpottery of these 2 fanatical Einstein Dingleberries

[]

> Now Khan & Ed, all that not withstanding, have
> your jollies and keep on worshipping Albert's sphincter
> for it is more rewarding for you to worship then to think.
> >
> Thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahahanson

WOW, I made it to Hanson's $#!+ list.
I'm special. 8^)
ed

[Mahipal]

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 1:54:48 PM UTC-4, HVAC wrote:
> Loopy says
>> Hey HVAC, which college did you study any science at?
> ----------
>
> I've told you before. I'll trade that information for your home
> address and phone number.

A fair exchange would be you HVAC show me your college, I'll show mine.
You want my address and phone number, try the whitest White Pages.
You'll have to work to establish regards details of my college credentials.

>> Who were your
>> friends that sat next to you, side-by-side or front-or-back?
> ----------
>
> Sorry, that's classified.

I'm sure you're an expert ass in classified.

>> Got any teachers' names?
> ----------
>
> Sorry. Classified.

I'm sure you're a major ass in classified.

Need hint? Sure. You're writing speaks volumes about you. Keep writing!

>> Did they your friends graduate? Got Diploma, HVAC?
> ----------
>
> Yes

HVAC, were you born a liar or was that skill acquired? Which college?

[hanson]

"Edward Prochak" <edpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
..

> hanson wrote:
>> Look at the crackpottery of these 2 fanatical Einstein Dingleberries
> []

>> Now Khan & Ed, all that not withstanding, have
>> your jollies and keep on worshipping Albert's sphincter
>> for it is more rewarding for you to worship then to think.
>> Thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahahanson
>

"Edward Prochak" wrote:
> WOW, I made it to Hanson's $#!+ list.
> I'm special. 8^)
> ed

.
hanson wrote:
.... ahahahaha... No, no, Ed, you are NOT! Not at all.
You do a very good job in what you are trying to do.
>
Nevertheless I was expecting that you would have picked
up & commented on Einstein's early (~1920) hatred onto
QM with its "spooky action at a distance" and AE's
(~1954) admission that

|||AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, my gravitation theory included."
>

in which "physic cannot be based on the field concept
by which AE referred to "entangled photons" that
allow info transfer at FTL and regardless of distance.

[Edward Prochak]

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 2:38:44 PM UTC-4, hanson wrote:
> "Edward Prochak" <edpr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ..
[]

> "Edward Prochak" wrote:
> > WOW, I made it to Hanson's $#!+ list.
> > I'm special. 8^)
> > ed
> .
> hanson wrote:
> .... ahahahaha... No, no, Ed, you are NOT! Not at all.
> You do a very good job in what you are trying to do.
> >
> Nevertheless I was expecting that you would have picked
> up & commented on Einstein's early (~1920) hatred onto
> QM with its "spooky action at a distance" and AE's
> (~1954) admission that
> |||AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
> |||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
> |||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
> |||AE:||| castle in the air, my gravitation theory included."
> >
> in which "physic cannot be based on the field concept
> by which AE referred to "entangled photons" that
> allow info transfer at FTL and regardless of distance.

Well I have commented on that before. I can't repeat
myself over and over on the same point. (I am NOT JM).

Bu since you want to hear it: It doesn't bother me if
Einstein's theory is replaced. The nature of scientific
advance is that as we learn more, we will get better theories.

PV thinks it is a great thing to predict the end of
Relativity. But as you point out, Albert did that
a long time ago.

Science lurches onward. 8^)
ed

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Ed Prochak asked:
> Could you tell me who is still using epicycles today?

The String Theory Guys, on YouTube.

> Currently accepted theories carry weight Because 
> they have been tested with known facts.

Or, failing that, because it makes one watch YouTube adverts.
SciFi sells; science per se, not so much.

> for part B of your comment to dismiss an idea
> "based upon establishment belief",

One must know the state of the art, 
-- as Einstein did, and Ben Jacoby can't -- 
before one can improve on it.

> " There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now,
>   All that remains is more and more precise measurement. "
> -- Lord Kelvin

Kelvin was right; Einstein was more precise than Newton;
and so it goes, on and on.

[James McGinn]

On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 3:40:02 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

Leave science to scientists, you worthless troll.